1986 fleer Jordan RC was the first ever trading card I knew about. So I've been very interested in the 86 fleer sequence.

I've found 7 pack break results (never opened one myself) and a very good post about the sequence (don't know if I can post the link here). That post pointed out the 66 cards apart rule but didn't say much about the mid-pack "flip".

According to the pack break data I found (mostly from youtube) I'm pretty sure the flip is not completely random. The flip occurs because the sequence hits the left end of the uncut sheet (1, or 12, or ... or 111 or 122). And after the flip the sequence starts from the right end, 11, or 22, or ... or 121 or 132.

The meanig of this is, you will never get a #57 Jordan because of a mid-pack flip, which means you can know if a Jordan is inside just by looking at the first card of a pack.

But thers's still one thing, every box of 86 fleer contains 3 sets and another 36 cards, I still don't know how these 36 extra cards were arranged into packs.

1986 fleer Jordan RC was the first ever trading card I knew about. So I've been very interested in the 86 fleer sequence.

I've found 7 pack break results (never opened one myself) and a very good post about the sequence (don't know if I can post the link here). That post pointed out the 66 cards apart rule but didn't say much about the mid-pack "flip".

According to the pack break data I found (mostly from youtube) I'm pretty sure the flip is not completely random. The flip occurs because the sequence hits the left end of the uncut sheet (1, or 12, or ... or 111 or 122). And after the flip the sequence starts from the right end, 11, or 22, or ... or 121 or 132.

The meanig of this is, you will never get a #57 Jordan because of a mid-pack flip, which means you can know if a Jordan is inside just by looking at the first card of a pack.

But thers's still one thing, every box of 86 fleer contains 3 sets and another 36 cards, I still don't know how these 36 extra cards were arranged into packs.

A complete, unsearched box yields 3 or 4 Jordans, no more, no less. For that matter, it yields 3 or 4 of every card, no more, no less. Fleer's collation was excellent during the 80s basketball years.

36 packs per box x 12 cards per pack = 432 cards per box

432 cards per box divided by 132 cards per set = 3.27 sets per box

So in addition to getting three sets per box, there's a 27% chance of finding a fourth Jordan, Barkley, Ewing, etc. This math holds true for the stickers as well. Since the mid 70s when Topps went to a single series printing through the 90s when short prints were introduced back into the hobby, it has been all about the math. You simply cannot average a Rickey Henderson rookie per 1980 Topps wax box; the math does not support it. You can't average a Griffey rookie per 1989 Upper Deck wax box (low or high); the math does not support it, no matter how bad the collation is.

Mike's description of the sequence is sort of correct. The cards fall in two parallel reverse alphabetical order sequence, alternating cards, 66 cards apart. Not counting the sticker (which is randomly paired with the 12 cards, but still follows the same mathematical insertion rate), starting from the top card (face up, next to the gum), a pack may look like this:

BBC Exchange. The only place I will buy vintage wax from. He knows vintage packs inside and out. You can trust that he does not search his packs. People have received Jordan RCs, 1975 topps packs w/ a Yount or Brett RC showing, lots of good stuff.

Are there any videos out there of people actually breaking the packs open and showing this sequence? You would think someone would have done this by now to help prove this theory. Would like to see that.

Are there any videos out there of people actually breaking the packs open and showing this sequence? You would think someone would have done this by now to help prove this theory. Would like to see that.

The idea that cards fall 66 cards apart is not a theory, that is fact. The idea that when a pack sequence flips it starts over at the end of a sheet is a theory. It's pretty expensive to break a full box to prove this to someone. It's only around $14k for a box.

Are there any videos out there of people actually breaking the packs open and showing this sequence? You would think someone would have done this by now to help prove this theory. Would like to see that.

And instead of all of us proving to you that it is fact, why don't you prove to us that it is not a fact? If it concerns you that much you can do your own research and show us your argument.